C3Q 


o 


Reprinted  from  the  Educational  Review,  New  York,  Novertiber, 

Copyright,  igoo,  by  Educational  Review  Puhlishing  Co.|\  VJ»^ 


•rwt 


^ALlf^ 


H 


II 


AN    ETHNIC    VIEW    OF    HIGHER    EDUCATION' 

The  conviction  from  which  the  remarks  of  this  paper  pro- 
ceed is  that  the  value,  the  means,  and  the  methods  of  higher 
education,  as  of  all  education,  can  be  rightly  determined  only 
by  constant  reference  to  its  effect  upon  both  the  individual  and 
the  race,  and  that  in  all  questions  pertaining  to  this  subject  the 
present  tendency  is  to  give  undue  consideration  to  the  indi- 
vidual. Suggested  improvements  of  the  course  of  study,  dis- 
cussion of  the  expediency  and  limits  of  the  elective  system, 
and  attempts  to  solve  the  problem  of  articulating  higher 
and  secondary  education  reveal  the  fact  that  the  needs  and 
interests  of  those  who  are  to  be  benefited  immediately  by 
college  and  university  training  are  the  primary  objects  of 
concern.  The  same  narrow  range  of  vision  is  betrayed  in 
much  of  the  current  discussion  of  such  questions  as  "  Does 
a  college  education  pay  ?  "  On  the  one  hand  it  is  asserted, 
for  instance,  that  the  individual  profits  by  it,  and  on  the 
other  that  it  unfits  him  for  business,  as  if  these  were  con- 
clusive arguments.  But  such  problems  of  higher  education 
are  not  primarily  economic,  and  they  cannot  be  settled  by 
comparison  of  income  and  outlay.  Socially  or  ethnically 
considered  a  college  education  may  be  a  profitable  investment 
even  if  it  does  not  pay  in  dollars  and  cents,  and  if  it  unfits  one 
for  business  it  may  be  so  much  the  worse  for  business.  No 
educational  question  is  strictly  or  chiefly  individualistic.  None 
can  be  finally  settled  without  careful  consideration  of  its  bear- 
ing upon  the  interests  of  the  race.  Neglect  of  this  considera- 
tion is  sure  to  produce  error  and  confusion  in  educational 
thought.  "  Most  of  the  controversies  relative  to  this  great 
question  of  education,"  says  Fouillee,  "  seem  to  me  to  be  due  to 
the  fact  that  we  fail  to  reach  a  sufficiently  general  point  of  view, 

^  An  address  delivered  before   the  Department    of    Higher    Education    of   the 
National  Educational  Association  at  Charleston,  S.  C,  July  13,  1900. 

346 

263413 


An  ethnic  view  of  higher  education  347 

i.  e.,  the  national,  international,  or  even  ethnical."  We  need 
therefore,  both  for  practical  and  theoretical  purposes,  a  new 
educational  orientation.  It  is  with  the  hope  of  contributing 
in  some  small  degree  to  this  orientation  that  I  invite  attention 
to  an  ethnic  view  of  higher  education. 

Before  considering  higher  education  specially,  we  must 
glance  briefly  at  education  in  general.  What  aspect  does  the 
nature  and  function  of  education  as  a  whole  present  when  con- 
sidered from  the  standpoint  of  the  race  ? 

As  soon  as  we  contemplate  education  from  the  racial  or 
ethnic  point  of  view  it  reveals  itself  as  fundamentally  a  process 
of  social  transformation.  It  represents  the  latest  and,  poten- 
tially if  not  actually,  the  most  effective  factor  of  social  evolu- 
tion. While  it  deals  with  individuals,  its  primary  object  is  the 
progress  of  the  race  thru  the  improvement  of  its  individual 
members.  The  goal  of  education  is,  therefore,  not  a  single 
one,  as  is  sometimes  represented;  it  is  double.  It  lies  in  the 
individual  and  in  the  race.  In  the  education  of  the  individual 
the  goal  is  the  maximum  development  of  social  efficiency. 
This  involves  the  application  of  physiological  and  psychological 
principles  to  the  development  of  mind  and  body.  Hence  the 
educational  importance  of  physiology  and  experimental  or 
psycho-physical  psychology.  In  the  education  of  the  race  the 
goal  is  the  successive  realization  of  higher  and  higher  stages  of 
humanity.  *'  Given  the  hereditary  merits  and  faults  of  a  race," 
the  problem  of  education  becomes,  as  Guyau  rightly  stated  it, 
"  to  what  extent  can  we  by  education  modify  the  existing 
heritage  to  the  advantage  of  a  new  heritage  ?  "  This  implies  a 
knowledge  of  the  means  and  methods  of  social  evolution,  the 
laws  and  causes  of  the  social  process.  Hence  the  importance 
to  the  educator  of  social  history  and  the  science  of  sociology. 
Educational  psychology  should  be  racial  as  well  as  individual. 
The  essential  fact,  however,  is  that  education — elementary, 
secondary,  and  higher — is  primarily  a  social  or  ethnic  expedient 
for  accelerating  progress.  All  its  problems  are  therefore  social 
problems. 

Another  fact  which,  from  this  point  of  view,  leaps  to  the  eye, 
as  the  French  say,  is  that,  contrary  to  the  hypothesis  upon  which 


348  Educational  Review  [November 

Rousseau  and  his  followers  have  attempted  to  found  a  science 
of  education,  education  is  not  a  slavish  imitation  of  nature,  but 
an  interference^ith^o^called  naturaMaws.'^  Its  sole  raison 
d'etre  is  the  inadequacy  of  nature's  methods.  It  is  the  nega- 
tion of  laissez  faire  in  individual  and  social  evolution.  The 
assistance  it  has  rendered  nature  in  the  development  of  the  in- 
dividual is  perfectly  obvious,  but  its  possibility  as  a  social  fac- 
tor has  only  begun  to  be  appreciated.  Down  to  the  present 
time  it  has  acted  almost  wholly  as  a  socially  unconscious  or 
genetic  force  in  the  evolution  of  the  race.  To  be  sure  it  has 
long  been  recognized  as  a  means  of  social  improvement,  but 
there  has  been  almost  no  attempt  to  use  it  scientifically  in  the 
development  of  a  people  as  it  is  now  used  in  the  development 
of  a  person.  Plato  and  the  Spartans  had  the  idea,  but  not  the 
ideals  and  the  science.  Altho  books  on  education  are  thick, 
and  with  regard  to  many  of  them  I  might  add  as  light,  as 
autumnal  leaves,  I  know  of  but  few  worth  mentioning  which 
have  urged  its  ordered  application  as  a  national,  social,  or 
ethnic  lever.  Its  purposive  use  has  not  been  consciously  directed 
toward  a  social  end;  that  is  to  say,  educational  teleology  has 
been  limited  to  the  individual.  The  time  has  come,  however, 
when  it  may  be  extended  to  the  race.  '*  Thru  education,"  says 
Professor  Dewey,  ''  society  can  formulate  its  own  purposes, 
can  organize  its  own  means  and  resources,  and  thus  shape 
itself  with  definiteness  and  economy  in  the  direction  in  which 
it  wishes  to  move." 

With  this  comprehensive  view  of  education  as  a  whole  from 
the  ethnic  standpoint,  w^e  may  now  turn  to  the  consideration  of 
higher  education.  The  first  question  that  confronts  us  is.  How 
are  we  to  separate  higher  education  from  the  work  of  the  com- 
mon schools,  and  what  is  the  relation  between  them? 

In  the  first  place,  higher  education  is,  of  course,  a  continua- 
tion of  secondary  education,  as  the  latter  is  a  continuation  of 
elementary.  They  are  all  a  part  of  the  same  process.  And  yet 
there  is  a  difference,  due  to  the  necessary  division  of  labor,  be- 
tween the  function  of  higher  education  and  the  function  of  the 
common  schools  which,  altho  it  may  not  justify  an  entirely 
separate  classification,  is  yet  sufficient  to  enable  us  to  draw  a 


1900]  An  ethnic  view  of  higher  education  349 

pretty  firm  line  between  them.  When  we  consider  the  work  of 
the  common  schools  we  find  that  however  clearly  it  perceives 
the  educational  ends,  and  however  ambitious  it  may  be  to 
realize  them,  it  is  chiefly  limited  to  the  task  of  transmitting 
from  one  generation  to  another  the  mental,  moral,  and  physical 
acquirements  of  the  race.  It  preserves  the  racial  inheritance. 
We  have  reached,  for  instance,  a  stage  of  civilization  at  which 
the  average  man  is  expected  to  be  able  to  read,  write,  and  cipher, 
to  possess  common  morality  and  a  certain  amount  of  knowledge 
in  regard  to  nature  and  man.  Elementary  and  secondary  edu- 
cation are  devoted  to  the  development  of  the  efiiciency  repre- 
sented by  these  acquirements  and  the  assimilation  of  this  knowl- 
edge. It  has  little  time  or  opportunity  for  doing  more  than  to 
maintain  the  average  social  level.  On  the  other  hand,  higher 
education  begins  at  this  point  and  should  be  expected  to  raise 
it.  It  selects  a  comparatively  small  number  of  individuals,  and 
professes  to  elevate  their  intelligence  and  efiiciency  to  a  higher 
power.  Moreover,  it  has  the  opportunity  to  add  new  incre- 
ments to  the  general  stock  of  knowledge.  The  function  of 
higher  education  is,  therefore,  especially  that  of  providing  the 
scientific  and  personal  elements  which  are  to  urge  the  race 
onward  to  a  new  and  higher  stage  of  civilization.  Elementary 
and  secondary  education  are  chiefly  devoted,  on  account  of  their 
limitations,  to  the  preservation  of  the  social  status  quo.  To 
higher  education  is  given  a  superior  opportunity  of  raising  the 
social  level.  The  one  preserves  order,  the  other  secures  prog- 
ress. Elementary  and  secondary  education,  so  far  as  social 
progress  is  concerned,  are  primarily  static;  higher  education, 
dynamic.  We  thus  see  that  there  is  a  certain  degree  of  simi- 
larity between  the  relation  of  higher  education  and  the  common 
schools  and  the  relation  of  imitation  and  eccentricity  or  genius 
in  the  social  world,  heredity  and  variation  in  the  biological 
world,  and  the  centripetal  and  centrifugal  forces  in  the  physical 
world.  It  is  not  pretended,  of  course,  that  the  parallelism  is 
exact,  but  it  may  serve  to  throw  into  stronger  relief  the  essen- 
tially dynamic  function  of  higher  education. 

If  the  function  of  higher  education,  ethnically  considered,  is 
above  all  to  contribute  the  socially  progressive  elements,  then 


350  Educational  Review  [November 

we  may  judge  its  present  efficiency  by  the  character  and  the 
amount  of  this  contribution.  The  criterion  cannot  be  success- 
fully applied,  however,  unless  we  know  beforehand  what  kind 
of  social  elements  are  progressive.  This  knowledge  requires 
some  conception  of  a  goal  toward  which  society  should  be 
directed,  as  well  as  an  acquaintance  with  the  methods  of  social 
•evolution.  It  is  therefore  necessary  to  take  these  matters  into 
consideration,  and  it  may  be  helpful  to  begin  by  glancing  for  a 
moment  at  the  nature  of  the  evolutionary  process  in  general. 

Evolution,  like  education,  is  a  continuous  process,  but  it  may 
be  divided  into  natural  and  artificial  evolution.  As  a  wholly 
natural  or  subrational  process  it  takes  place  independently  of 
human  volition,  and  is  wholly  determined  by  the  adaptive  force 
of  the  organism  and  the  character  of  the  environment.  Given 
^n  organism,  biological  or  social,  that  is,  something  capable  of 
adapting  itself,  its  natural  evolution  consists  in  its  continuous 
adjustment  to  its  environment,  or  in  Spencerian  phraseology, 
the  adjustment  of  its  internal  relations  to  its  external  relations. 
The  goal  of  natural  evolution,  that  is,  evolution  not  consciously 
directed,  is  perfect  adaptation  to  environment,  the  equilibrium 
of  the  forces  of  nature  and  the  forces  of  the  organism.  This 
.goal  has  been  reached  in  the  biological  world  in  the  develop- 
ment of  the  higher  animal  forms,  and  in  the  social  world  in 
certain  peoples  who  have  apparently  reached  a  stationary  state. 
Its  method  is  the  preservation,  perpetuation,  and  improvement 
of  such  variations  in  the  organism  as  tend  to  perfect  its  adapta- 
tion; that  is,  natural  selection.  Now  in  such  evolution  pro- 
gressive elements  can  only  be,  first,  such  increments  of  force  as 
may  be  added  to  the  adaptive  power  of  the  organism,  the  vis  a 
tergo  which  pushes  it  on  and  produces  its  variations,  and, 
second,  those  special  variations  in  the  existing  type  which  by 
bringing  the  organism  one  degree  nearer  perfection,  i.  e.,  per- 
fect adaptation,  are,  so  to  speak,  seized  upon,  preserved  and 
perpetuated  by  natural  selection.  The  variations,  we  say,  are 
spontaneous.  They  merely  happen  to  take  place.  They  are 
also  innumerable,  and  the  vast  majority  of  them,  being  non- 
advantageous,  are  utterly  useless  to  progress,  and  represent 
pure  waste  of  vital  force.     It  is  only  by  chance  that  some  of 


1900]  An  ethnic  view  of  higher  education  351 

them  serve  the  purpose  of  nature.  Hence  it  is  that  natural 
evolution,  biological  and  social,  is  a  most  extravagant  and  un- 
necessarily slov^  process,  and  furnishes  no  model  for  intelligent 
action  in  physical,  moral,  or  mental  training,  or  in  any  other 
sphere  of  action.  Observe  now  the  difference  between  natural 
evolution  and  artificial  evolution,  in  which  higher  education, 
plays  a  part. 

In  artificial  evolution  the  goal  is  no  longer  fixed  by  natural 
circumstances.  It  is  predetermined  by  man;  it  is  ideal.  If 
the  environment  is  not  suitable  to  the  development  of  the  ideal 
type,  the  environment  is  changed.  This  is  all  that  cultivation 
in  agriculture  and  horticulture  amounts  to.  Again,  the  pro- 
gressive variations  of  type  are  not  left  to  chance,  but  are  ideally 
conceived,  and  effort  is  made  to  produce  them.  This  is  illus- 
trated in  the  breeding  of  stock.  The  result  is  that  more  is  ac- 
complished in  artificial  than  in  natural  evolution  by  the  same 
expenditure  of  energy.  Waste  is  diminished,  the  ultimate  ob- 
ject being  its  complete  elimination.  Evolution  having  become 
a  conscious  process  it  is  ruled  by  the  intellect.  The  laws  of 
nature  are  not  disregarded;  they  are  counteracted  or  overruled, 
just  as  the  law  of  gravitation  is  overruled  in  the  construction  of 
an  EifTel's  Tower.  The  difference  between  artificial  evolution 
and  natural  evolution  is  the  difference  between  science  and 
empiricism,  between  intelligently  purposive  action  and  fortuity. 
It  may  be  described  in  a  single  word — economy. 

As  was  said  before,  social  evolution  down  to  the  present  time 
has  been  almost  entirely  a  natural  process.  Christian  phi- 
losophy, poets,  and  social  dreamers  have  projected  indistinct, 
or  too  distinct,  goals  of  social  development,  but  none  of  them 
has  been  made  the  basis  of  scientific  attempts  at  social  im- 
provement. Social  environment  has  been  changed,  but  not 
with  the  conscious  purpose  of  molding  the  race  into  any  defi- 
nite and  scientifically  preconceived  form.  Special  energy  has- 
been  expended  upon  the  development  of  innumerable  varia- 
tions of  type,  but  little  attention  has  been  given  to  the  kind  of 
type  that  would  serve  the  purpose  of  natural  or  artificial  selec- 
tion. Many  are  called,  but  few  are  chosen.  Under  the  in- 
fluence of  education  the  whole  process  may  become  artificial. 


352  *  Educational  Review  [November 

When  this  is  the  case  the  number  of  progressive  elements  is 
increased.  They  will  then  be  as  follows :  First,  socially  pur- 
posive modifications  of  the  social  environment;  second,  new 
increments  of  social  adaptive  power,  or  racial  virility;  third,, 
new  increments  of  knowledge,  and  fourth,  select  individual 
types  embodying  virility  and  knowledge  and  which,  being 
lifted  up  by  higher  education,  will  draw  all  men  unto  them,  that 
is,  will  raise  the  social  level. 

We  are  now  ready  to  apply  the  ethnic  test  to  higher  educa- 
tion. What  is  it  doing  toward  contributing  these  various  ele- 
ments ?  This,  of  course,  cannot  be  described  within  the  limits 
of  this  paper.  All  that  can  be  done  is  to  offer  a  few  criticisms 
in  regard  to  its  contribution  to  each  element. 

In  the  first  place,  then,  higher  education,  instead  of  encour- 
aging purposive  changes  in  social  environment,  is  a  partisan 
and  an  apologist  of  the  present  order.  It  is  not  its  function,  of 
course,  to  introduce  these  changes  directly.  It  can  only  pro- 
vide the  knowledge  and  the  spirit,  and  leave  the  initiative  to- 
scientific  legislation.  But  academic  atmosphere  is  not  always 
healthful  to  the  growth  of  this  knowledge  and  spirit.  Much 
has  been  said  about  liberty  of  thought  in  our  colleges  and  uni- 
versities. It  is  contended  by  the  authorities  that  there  is  com- 
plete liberty,  and  the  claim  is  logical,  for  they  make  a  careful 
distinction  between  liberty  and  license.  Thought  is  free  so- 
long  as  it  is  sound,  and  the  authorities  have  their  own  convic- 
tions in  regard  to  what  constitutes  sound  thinking.  While 
freedom  of  thought  is  doubtless  increasing  in  all  our  higher 
institutions  of  learning,  and  will  continue  to  increase  as  they 
become  more  conscious  of  their  social  function,  yet  it  is  prob- 
ably true  to-day  that  there  is  not  a  college  or  university  in  the 
country  that  would  long  tolerate  an  active  and  formidable  ad- 
vocate of  serious  changes  in  the  present  social  order.  He  would 
be  required  to  go,  and  the  occasion  of  his  removal  would  not 
be  avowed  as  opposition  to  intellectual  liberty,  but  to  his  own 
incapacity,  as  evidenced  by  his  vagarious  opinions.  This  to 
the  educational  martyr  is  the  unkindest  cut  of  all.  It  is  his 
sorrow's  crown  of  sorrow. 

Owing  partly  to  the  feeling  in  college  and  university  circles 


ipoo]  An  ethnic  view  of  higher  education  353 

that  one  is  lucky  to  have  been  born  a  conservative,  there  has 
been  developed  a  sort  of  typical  academic  attitude  in  regard  to 
almost  all  questions  of  serious  social  importance.  In  political 
parlance  this  attitude  is  called  a  straddle,  but  the  euphemistic 
phrase  is  scientific  impartiality.  There  is  a  certain  type  of 
university  professor,  for  instance,  who  never  expresses  his  own 
opinion,  claims  indeed  that  he  has  none.  In  considering  a 
^iven  question  he  devotes  himself  to  the  accumulation  of  evi- 
dence, pro  and  con,  and  being  unable  to  determine  which  pile 
is  the  larger,  he  stands  as  immovable  as  the  traditional  donkey 
"between  two  stacks  of  hay.  He  speaks  condescendingly  of  the 
ol  TToXXoi.  His  contempt  for  enthusiasm  is  profound. 
He  insincerely  professes  to  envy  the  man  who  can  arrive  at  a 
conclusion,  but  as  for  himself  he  sees  so  deeply  and  finds  so 
much  argument  on  both  sides  of  every  question  that  he  is  al- 
ways in  doubt.     Like  Lowell's  candidate  in  the  Biglow  Papers, 

his 

"  Mind's  tu  fair  to  lose  its  balance 

And  say  which  party  has  most  sense, 
There  may  be  folks  of  greater  talence 
That  can't  set  stiddier  on  the  fence." 

This  type  of  university  man  has  done  much  to  give  to  higher 
•education  the  reputation  of  futility.  His  attitude  helps  to  ex- 
plain why  it  is  that  in  the  popular  mind  it  is  sufficent  to  con- 
demn a  theory  or  an  argument  to  describe  it  as  "  merely  aca- 
demic." It  is  expected  that  academic  discussion  is  likely  to 
•come  out  at  the  selfsame  door  wherein 'it  went.  We  recognize, 
of  course,  that  higher  education  must  encourage  impartiality  in 
investigation  and  conservatism  in  social  proposals,  but  there  is 
a  golden  mean.  The  true  scientific  spirit,  which  is  so  badly 
needed  in  every  department  of  thought,  does  not  imply  absence 
of  enthusiasm,  but  only  the  restraint  of  sentiment  while  investi- 
gation is  in  progress.  In  matters  of  social  advancement, 
higher  education  should  be  the  source  of  a  conservative 
radicalism. 

In  regard  to  the  second  progressive  element  mentioned, 
namely,  increase  in  race  virility,  higher  education  may  claim  to 
contribute  something  on  account  of  the  prominence  it  gives 


354  Educational  Review  [November 

athletics.  But  just  how  much  good  the  selection  and  probable 
overtraining  of  a  few  individuals  who  need  physical  culture 
least  is  going  to  do  the  race  it  is  somewhat  difficult  to  estimate. 
The  respect  engendered  for  physical  prowess  is  worth  some- 
thing, and  the  shouting  of  the  otherwise  passive  spectators  at 
the  games  may  have  its  value  in  raising  the  average  of  physical 
vigor.  It  is  a  fair  criticism,  however,  to  say  that  the  method 
would  not  commend  itself  to  a  thoroly  self-conscious  race 
as  the  best  means  of  promoting  its  progress..  Few  colleges 
and  universities,  with  all  their  interest  in  the  subject,  are  really 
conscious  of  the  social  value  of  athletics.  The  end  and  aim  is 
not  racial  culture,  but  the  winning  of  the  championship.  As  to 
other  methods  of  strengthening  the  human  stock,  they  are  not 
50  much  as  heard  of.  It  is  too  early  to  talk  of  a  scientific  stirpi- 
culture,  but  higher  education  might  do  much  toward  the  crea- 
tion of  a  sentiment  that  will  finally  bring  into  operation  the  law 
of  social  selection,  or  the  birth  of  the  fittest.  But  this  is  not  in 
its  consciousness.  So  far  then  as  contributing  to  the  virility  of 
the  race  is  concerned,  higher  education  falls  far  short  of  its 
opportunity. 

When  we  come  to  consider  the  increments  of  knowledge 
provided  by  higher  education,  they  are  so  numerous  and  im- 
portant that  it  may  seem  in  this  respect  to  be  completely  fulfill- 
ing its  function.  It  would  be  easy  to  name  a  long  list  of 
academic  discoveries  which  have  proved  to  be  invaluable. 
There  are  two  criticisms,  however,  which  are  at  once  suggested 
by  an  ethnic  view  of  the  subject.  In  the  first  place,  knowledge 
is  accumulated  without  regard  to  its  possible  social  utilization. 
Much  of  it  is,  therefore,  not  appreciably  dynamic.  All  knowl- 
edge is  valuable,  but  all  is  hot  equally  valuable.  Higher  educa- 
tion seems  to  proceed  on  the  assumption  that  one  discovery  is 
as  good  as  another.  An  illustration  of  what  I  mean  may  be 
found  in  the  doctors'  theses  of  our  various  universities.  Many 
of  them  are  on  such  subjects  as  the  final  "  e  "  in  Chaucer,  or 
the  dative  case  in  Sallust,  which,  however  important  from  a 
linguistic  standpoint,  are  not  of  present  and  pressing  impor- 
tance to  the  race.  Some  of  them  represent  toilsome  pursuit  of 
insignificant  bits  of  knowledge  which,  when  found,  are  about 


1900]  An  ethnic  view  of  higher  education  355 

as  valuable  to  society  as  the  individual  acquirement  of  the 
power  to  balance  a  straw  on  one's  nose.  In  the  second  place^ 
higher  education  over-emphasizes  the  importance  of  original 
investigation  in  comparison  with  intellectual  organization  and 
distribution.  Its  rewards  are  for  the  investigator.  It  is  al- 
most as  much  as  a  scholar's  reputation  is  worth  to  undertake  to- 
popularize  his  knowledge.  And  yet  the  successful  distributor 
of  knowledge  performs  a  vastly  more  important  social  service 
than  the  average  original  investigator.  Many  college  and  uni- 
versity professors  hold  their  positions,  not  because  they  are 
teachers,  but  because  they  have  hunted  down  some  more  or  less 
important  bit  of  knowledge.  This  is  why  some  of  the  worst 
possible  teaching  may  be  found  in  our  universities.  Some  of  us 
know  by  painful  experience  that  this  is  true.  These  two  de- 
fects in  higher  education  an  ethnic  view  will  tend  to  remedy. 

The  last  in  the  list  of  progressive  elements  which  were  men- 
tioned as  rightfully  to  be  expected  from  higher  education  were 
cultured  personalities  specially  adapted  to  the  task  of  elevating 
the  race  to  a  higher  plane  of  civilization.  Here  again  much 
might  be  said  in  regard  to  what  has  been  done.  The  roll  of 
names  of  college  men  who  have  helped  the  world  forward  is  a. 
long  one.  But  after  all,  this  contribution  has  been  largely  un- 
conscious and  incidental.  These  personalities  have  been  de- 
veloped primarily  for  themselves,  and  not  for  the  race.  Their 
social  utility  was  accidental.  They  were,  so  to  speak,  spon- 
taneous variations.  The  spirit  of  higher  education  is  still  indi- 
vidualistic. The  one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  young  men 
and  young  w^omen  now  in  our  higher  institutions  of  learning 
are  being  trained  not  primarily  for  social  service,  but  for  suc- 
cess, and  if  statistics  show  that  the  majority  of  them  succeed, 
higher  education  is  content.  But  success  is  sometimes  the  very 
opposite  of  social  service.  The  fact,  therefore,  that  so  many 
college  men  succeed  may  be  a  severe  reflection  on  our  colleges. 
It  may  indicate  that  their  students  are  trained  merely  to  exploit 
their  fellow-men.  The  race  is  not  interested  primarily  in  any- 
one's success,  but  in  the  manner  of  his  success.  Does  he  pro- 
duce healthful  commodities?  Does  he  increase  wealth  or 
illth?     Does  he  promote  life  or  death?     Does  he  make  the 


3  5  6  Educational  Review 

world  a  better  place  in  which  to  live  ?  These  are  the  questions 
in  which  the  race  is  interested.  It  sanctions  the  exploitation 
of  nature,  but  it  condemns  the  exploitation  of  man. 

The  whole  criticism  of  higher  education  from  the  ethnic 
point  of  view  may  be  summed  up  in  a  very  few  words.  It  is 
loosely  organized  from  the  standpoint  of  social  economy.  It 
is  too  conservative  in  everything  but  religion.  It  grinds  out 
knowledge  with  almost  contemptuous  indifference  to  its  social 
timeliness  and  use.  More  time  is  given,  for  instance,  to  the 
study  of  entomology  than  to  the  study  of  anthropology,  to  the 
study  of  insects  than  to  the  study  of  men.  Domestic  science 
and  sociology  receive  less  consideration  than  Latin  and  Greek. 
It  turns  out  men  and  women  with  highly  trained  powers,  but 
often  without  the  spirit  to  use  these  powers  in  conscious  service 
of  the  race.  It  is  significant  that  the  church  is  expected  to 
provide  this  spirit  by  conversion.  (The  truly  educated  man 
requires  no  conversion)  In  evolutionary  terminology  the  vari- 
ations emphasized  and  produced  by  higher  education  are 
socially  advantageous  only  when  they  happen  to  be  so.  There 
is,  therefore,  too  much  waste.  In  a  word,  higher  education 
acts  unconsciously  as  an  ethnic  force.  It  is  still  under  the  sway 
of  natural  evolution.  It  illustrates  the  economy  of  nature  and 
not  the  economy  of  mind. 

I.  W.  HOWERTH 

University  of  Chicago 


